Improved Vibration Reduction (VR) System: The new AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm lens provides users with up to 4.5 stops* of VR stabilization, to help create sharp photos and smooth video, even in low light or while handheld. Users can choose from either Normal or Sport VR Modes for added stability when shooting from a non-stationary location.

Lightweight with Stepping Motor Technology: This AF-P lens uses a stepping motor for fast and quiet autofocus, which reduces the sound of lens operation while recording HD or 4K UHD video. This new technology also contributes to the lens’ reduced weight, making it easy to carry on all-day excursions.

Electronic Diaphragm: This lens takes advantage of the fast burst speed of Nikon DSLR cameras, as the Electronic Diaphragm not only provides smooth exposure transitions during video capture, but also helps maintain consistent exposure during high-speed shooting, such as when photographing sports.

Get Close: The AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm lens features a minimum focus distance of only 3.94 ft. (1.2 meters) and a reproduction ratio of 0.25x, letting users get even closer to capture the most extravagant details, even at 300mm.

Lens Construction: The lens features dust and drip resistance, along with a metal lens mount for durability. It features a 9-blade diaphragm for a natural, circular bokeh. The lens also features an ED element to significantly reduce instances of chromatic aberration.

Nikon AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR lens MTF charts:

This page will be updated multiple times in the next few hours, refresh your browser for the latest version.

The AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR is an approximately 4.3x telephoto zoom lens that covers a broad range of focal lengths — up to 300mm. Adoption of a stepping motor ensures fast, quiet, and smooth AF drive, especially beneficial when used for movie recordings.

The lens is also equipped with a vibration reduction (VR) function that provides a level of compensation equivalent to a 4.5-stop increase in shutter speed. In addition, the SPORT mode normally reserved for super-telephoto lenses has also been built into the VR function. This helps to stabilize the image displayed in the viewfinder, making it easy for photographers to compose their shots as intended, even when photographing scenes such as sporting events in which the subject moves quickly and erratically.

Despite the fact that the AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR is a telephoto zoom lens that covers a broad range of focal lengths up to 300mm, its lightweight design ensures a weight of approximately 680 g (measured in accordance with CIPA standards) that gives it superior portability, and enables nimble, hand-held telephoto photography. Resistance to dust and drips was taken into consideration with the design of this lens, as was the user's comfort and ease of use when a smooth operational feel was achieved for the focus and zoom rings.

When used with a DX-format camera, the AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR supports a maximum focal length equivalent to 450mm in 35mm [135] format, making it easy to utilize the agility of the DX-format to enjoy telephoto photography.

The AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR will satisfy the shooting intent of a broad range of users of both FX- and DX-format cameras looking to enjoy effortless and comfortable telephoto photography with superior image quality, performance, and agility.

Primary features:

Support for the 70-300mm range of focal lengths, which allows users to enjoy high-magnification telephoto photography

It’s $200 more than Canon’s current sale price on theirs though, but then that lens is not weather sealed.

Gene

Did you include the price of a new body that is compatible with this lens in your calculations? Or, do you shoot APS-C body that you purchased just yesterday? Cause everything else is not fully compatible…

BG

Doesn’t seem to be internal focus…?

Lex Cross

It is.

BG

Doesn’t say IF in the name and dpreview claims extending front as focus method. Unless all AF-Ps are IF but I’m unaware of such a thing.

Sandy Bartlett

It is, check the Nikon web site.

BG

Ok!

Sandy Bartlett

Nice, less expensive than rumored and it has the VR on off switch.

Lex Cross

The website lists the same compatibility though so I wonder what’s up…

As far as Europe is concerned, yes, but not only. Nikon’s margins are higher there, for whatever reason.

nwcs

Partly. Also there are things such as expected volume of sales, legal requirements (mandated return periods, warranties, etc.) that differ per country, currency volatility, etc. It’s never as simple as one world one price.

Abyssal

Its not fair we should be allowed to go to usa and settle there i want a green card….

CrashingOut

I would welcome you with open arms into my nation, however a president I did not elect is a paranoid delusional scaremonger who is all too happy to paint you as a incoming terrorist. Just want you to know he does not represent out nation, only a small extremist portion of the USA believe the way he does, so if you are patient and Dolt 45 doesn’t get a second term, your chance could come.
But if you don’t make it, don’t worry, I’m thinking about moving to Costa Rica for some very good reasons….people are happier there and barely any guns – no standing army!

I love and work with the military but imagine how much money could be saved if people just worked with each other. Costa Rica has figured that out, and I fear that day will never come for the USA.

Piooof

Yes, a 3-position Off/Normal/Sport. I wonder whether Sport is the new name for Active or something else.

JXVo

Are we sure that it has the VR switch on the lens? The press release indicates that 2 VR modes are provided but nowhere in the pics, text or specs does it mention a physical switch on the lens body. It could just be menu actuated….

ITN

No. Sport is a mode where the lens allows rapid movements to follow an erratic subject without trying to fight the changes in direction with VR. It results in a bit less effective stabilization than normal mode but is easier to use when working on moving subjects.

Active is for when you are on an unstable platform.

Piooof

Thanks for this enlightening comment.

Boby

Neither present VR nor AF/MF switch

but you can simply override by rotating the focus ring which less switch and more compact

Sandy Bartlett

It has both switches

Boby

Ow, i see there is a one.

i though it just like First Nikon AF-P lens (18-55 3,5-5,6 and 70-300mm 4,5-6,3)

CaMeRa QuEsT

MTFs look great at the DX circle, even better than the new DX 70-300, so definitively an upgrade for users of all previous 70-300 on DX bodies, even over the Tamron, bravo Nikon!

Lex Cross

Science tells me that the DX lens will still be better on DX body. We’ve been fed the myth of the lens sweet spot and ignored the fact that light doesn’t work that way so the edges on DX will be soft.

BG

Huh?

drororomon

Pretty sure you have it the other way round. When you put FX glass over a DX sensor, you’re avoiding the soft edges of the glass altogether. No?

That’s because D500 has a higher pixel density than D810. To prove your point you’d have to show that a DX lens performs better than a FX lens, but then you still have other factors like optical designs.

Jeepmeister

Um, no. Check the same comparo D810 vs. D90 (which has less “pixel density”) and the FF still comes out ahead. Even adjusting for equal DOF, the FF camera outperforms. Pixel density is not the issue, sensor size (and its effect on the related demands for lens resolution) is.

RC Jenkins

Um, no. Check the same comparo D810 vs. D3 (which is also FF). The D810 outperforms, despite the same sensor size.

Also, there is no “DOF” adjustment required when comparing different sensor sizes in this test–these are flat subjects.

Even when comparing DoF between formats, the same image is projected onto the subject–the “DOF adjustment” you’re referring to is primarily due to either:
-The different apertures used for different focal lengths with the same FoV (example: 35mm F/1.8DX and 50mm F/1.8FX have different apertures. The 50mm F/1.8 has a larger aperture than the 35mm F/1.8.)
-The different distances used for the same subject when the same lens is used (DX will be taken from further away for a similar FoV).
-The difference in effect of the circle of confusion projected by the lens relative to the frame size and sensor’s resolving power / pixel density.

In a DX sensor vs. DX crop of FX sensor, the frame size is the same. If the pixel density is the same, and the lens is the same, and the subject distance is the same, and the aperture & settings are the same, and the viewing distance is the same, then the CoC will be as well. And so will the DoF.

RC Jenkins

You may want to study your science courses again…

Aside the from obvious flaw (including subjectivity) in DxOMarks’ “P-Mpix’ score, these cameras have different pixel counts and pixel densities. The D500 scaled would be 46 megapixels, not 36. This makes a huge difference, since the ‘acutance’ listed is in terms of percentage of the pixel count.
46 Megapixels is 28% more dense than 36 Megapixels.

Let’s take the back-of-the-napkin example of roughly “60%” we see on the D810. This means that DxO claims that the lens is resolving roughly 21.6 megapixels on an 864mm²; or 0.025MP / mm².

When you multiply this same density by the DX area (~432mm²), you get a total of 10.8 Megapixels resolved–which you’ll note is approx. 51% acuity on the D500’s 20.9MP sensor.

…which is roughly consistent with what you see there. This is obviously not even accounting for their methods, which in this example are hardly scientific.

Jeepmeister

Sorry, but a quick check of the same lens compared on D810 vs. D90 will show the FF still outperforming despite having HIGHER pixel density. Pixel density is not the issue, sensor size is.

Regarding the DX version always outperforming an FX version, no argument there, no such evidence has been shown here.

RC Jenkins

You’re confusing several issues and bringing items in scope beyond the claim. For example, the D90 has a crop sensor and an anti-aliasing filter, while the D810 is full frame with no AA filter. Also, these are completely different generation sensors, which can make a huge difference when it comes to things like photosensitive area. Even the D810 & D500 are at least a sensor generation apart, but still much closer than the D90 & D810.

But regardless, that’s not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to the attempt to claim that on a DX sensor vs FX sensor, the FX lens will resolve better over the DX area of the FX sensor than it will on a DX sensor. This comparison logically implies that the measurements are taken at the same level of precision–ie. that the pixel density over the DX area of both sensors is identical with no other variables that can significantly alter outcomes. This condition was not met in that post.

It’s not about the sharpness it’s about the uniformity of it. What you are showing still says that the DX area of the FX frame is more uniformly sharp than the full area of the DX

Jeepmeister

Yes but you need 1.5x the linear resolution to equal FF performance, and that generally makes up for the falloff in “edge” performance. AND reduces *center* performance.

Stop thinking of it in raw lens resolution numbers, and think of it this way – when taking the same picture on DX vs. FX, you must be able to resolve the same details at less than half the size (i.e., you need 1.5x more lens resolution in linear terms to equal FF performance).

RC Jenkins

Science tells us none of that.
–from a scientist. 🙂

Lex Cross

Then we both enjoy facts. So look at the facts of every single actual test chart that compare the same FX lens on a FX body and a DX body. Pick any lens. Center sharpness is fine but it all falls of pretty quickly till you stop down because of the angle that light is entering. It’s all just facts. You don’t even have to do the tests yourself but you can.

RC Jenkins

You’re making a fundamental mistake by assuming that correlation = causation.

Just so we’re clear: You’re saying that science predicts that an FX lens will project a ‘worse’ image on a DX sensor, when both sensors have the same pixel density? Because this is not the case. The lens projects the same. The DX sensor simply crops the center portion of this projected image.

Seb

By your logic, the middle of the FX frame should be poor.

But it isn’t.

So let me recap: let’s take FX sensors, crop to DX, and then magically photons will say ‘ok boys, it’s FX, so we need to behave’.

Oh boy…

Lex Cross

By my logic, light doesn’t reflect off the side of the too-small-for-the-lens-design mirror box with an FX on FX like it does with FX on DX.

By my logic, light doesn’t actually travel in the perfect cone shapes shown in diagrams. By my logic, parts of the lens designed to capture light that will hit that area aren’t able to.

RC Jenkins

Try taking your 35mm F/1.8 DX and mounting it on an FX body. You may be surprised to learn that it covers the entire FX image circle…

Did Nikon do this just as a secret to give people additional image circle they don’t need at the expense of contrast?

Jeepmeister

Not the angle of light entering, it’s the fact that smaller sensors need more resolution (about 1.5x more in linear terms for DX vs. FX) to achieve similar results, because for the same picture, the smaller sensor requires same details to be resolved (by the lens) at smaller size.

EnPassant

In practise the quality of the optics and glass used matters more. Also the difference between FX and DX is not that big. Some DX lenses almost covers the FX image circle.

Piooof

Yes, but some FX lenses cover much more than the FX image circle too. In both cases it’s just that eccentric IQ is too poor for this optical design and engineers had to include some comfortable margin in order to get decent corners.
For the moment, the two main interests of the DX version of this lens are its price (half!) and its weight (2/3). But no VR switch, which can be a minus for some people. As far as IQ is concerned, wait and see…

CaMeRa QuEsT

Wait a minute, so this VR can let you take a sharp picture of a static scene at 300mm using a shutter speed between 1/10 and 1/15 of a second? AMAZING!

EnPassant

Better try it first before you beleive it. Especially if you have shaky hands. I certainly can’t take any sharp photos at 200mm and 1/10 of a second with my 70-200/4 despite a claimed five stop vibration reduction.

With the high resolving sensors of today the old rule using “1/focal length second” shutter speed no longer is good enough for tack sharp results without VR. Better use a twice as fast shutter. So for 300mm that is 1/600 s, or at least 1/500 s.
So start the counting from that point and also reduce the claimed VR with 1-2 stop if you want to be sure of good results.

CaMeRa QuEsT

That is true, I too shoot at at least 2 x 35mm equivalent FL x second nowadays for this same reason, but still, being able to get a sharp shot at 300mm with a shutter speed of 1/30 of a second is quite amazing.

You could try setting a lower shutter speed and shooting a few images in a burst to increase your chances of getting a sharp shot.

Jeepmeister

= Why I use a tripod almost exclusively when taking pictures I give a sh!t about.

VanHoff

So… The new focus of the Nikkor FF line seems to be offer customers lightweight and compact lenses like this AF-P, with decent quality but with “little” trade-offs like no distance scale window (which many people find so useful), 1 ED element less and costing $200 more… I think that summarizes the new Nikon philosophy about focusing on mid to high “Quality products” and charging a lot more for all of them, it is a formula for profitability from a business point of view, but again… are they hearing what customers really expect from a Nikkor like the good ones Nikon used to produce?

Sandy Bartlett

This is an affordable lens. Nikon has recently introduced a 105,
70-200, 24-70, introduced an excellent 1.8 line, a 1.4 line, and all good lens, not a dog in the bunch. I’d say no one is doing more lens than Nikon the last few years.

bt1138

Yes, it is pretty affordable, if it offers good optical performance.

I think Sigma is the actor that has been good for the ecosystem. When you have real competition, it drives things along.

Captain Megaton

There is no reason this lens should cost more than the old version though. It’s obviously a cheaper lens to manufacture.

I can only assume they are playing msrp games and the price will fall to $500 in due course once old stock has cleared and early adopters have been milked.

paige4o4

Get used to price increases. The consumer photography market is shrinking. Fewer sales = high prices.

BigIUFan

Only if the lower sales numbers are due to constrained supply. Otherwise what you describe would cause prices to go lower.

paige4o4

Economy of scale. If volume shrinks, the average cost for product increases.

nwcs

Compare intro price to intro price. You’re not making a fair price comparison. And I have to wonder if the users of 70-300 really use the relatively useless distance window? I’m sure many people find the distance scale useful but how many is many? Outside of people doing trap focus or prefocus on a spot I’ve not run into anyone who uses it.

Mike Gordon

Thank you the old one was the same $$ at intro.

CaMeRa QuEsT

Nikon only needs to update and improve the 24-85 and the 24-120 and there will be no duds in their FX lens line.

The 24-120 is actually smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-105 mk II.

preston

And both of those are lighter than the Sigma 24-105.

Pat Mann

I’d rather see them make the optics better. Then they can make a consumer f/3.5-5.6 version better than the old one for those that want a small one. This is a very useful field-of-view range as a walkabout lens, but it needs better across-the-frame IQ to get my $.

Jakkapat Kosoltrakul

Wait…this one is a FX lens, but I don’t think I remember that there’s any FX body supports AF-P.

Sandy Bartlett

Nikon site says D5, DF, D810, D750.

Jakkapat Kosoltrakul

*edit* They’d updated their website after I posted this. At the time I posted, It was still just a copied list from AF-P 18-55 VR page.

Those are compatible but with limited functions. The fully compatible bodies currently are all DX.

I’m starting to think this lens is pretty stupid. Why bother even releasing it if it’s more compatible with DX cameras than FX cameras? From Nikon’s own site:
The number of cameras compatible with this lens is limited. Even for compatible cameras, a firmware update may be required*. Fully compatible models: D7500, D5600, D5500, D5300*, D3400, D3300*, D500 and later models

” D5, D750, D610, D600, D5500, D5300, D3300 need firmware update for it to work (they already state this so we should get it then). ”

Are you sure? This would be kind of a new Nikon strategy to provide firmware updates which are adding new compatibility for hardware that was sold long ago.

Manuth Chek

Google Translate for the Japanese page above says that these models will get a firmware update. After all, the camera in the page is a D750. The D5300, D5500 and D3300 all got firmware updates to make it support AF-P lenses too, so this wouldn’t be new.

ITN

It is not a new strategy. E lens support was added to 2007 and newer cameras via firmware when the 800/5.6E FL was launched.

Jakkapat Kosoltrakul

Hey, they just update their website. It now says D5, D750, D610, D600, D5500, D5300, D3300 will be fully compatible after firmware update.

Jirka

why some af-p lens when liveview autofocus is one of the worst of all camera brands, but not because of lens motor type…

CaMeRa QuEsT

Because Nikon must have a better LV AF solution coming out in the not so distant future, perhaps for their soon to be out mirrorless entry.

ITN

It is precisely because of the lens motors that Nikon live view (CD)AF with AF-S lenses is poor. AF-P lenses focus excellently in live view.

Agree, and saw it with the 70-300 AF-P DX on my D7100: definitely a step forward against AF-S motor.

TheInfinityPoint

What! No distance scale window?

RC Jenkins

This is an AF-P lens. It would be tough to do that, since the focusing may not be linearly tied to position.

To solve this, Canon (for example) put an LCD screen on their version of this lens (70-300 “STM”) to display focus distance. Nikon probably could have done the same.

nwcs

Well, is it really necessary for this lens?

jake337

There is supposed to be 5 lenses announced correct?

They always forget about the 180mm f2.8. Seeing how small/light the newest 300 f4 is I would love to see an updated 180mm f2.8.

Manuth Chek

Man I’d love a refresh of the 180mm f/2.8.

Seb

If it could stay as compact and be slightly sharper at 2.8, indeed.

jake337

Just look at the newest 300mm f4 P versus the D version and you can see this would be quite small. The new 300mm f4E PF is 75mm shorter than the D version. The 180mm f2.8D is already only 144mm long. If they could cut close to 75mm, like the 300mm, that would make a seriously short/light 180mm f2.8D.

This would also be a great lens for parents with kids in sports.

Chaitanya

On one hand there is Canon’s new 70-300mm USM II lens which maintained the price of original lens while generally improving AF (and IQ) and on the other hand there is this Nikon 70-300mm lens which went for slower Stepping motor and increased the price of lens while doing so.

I have the DX AF-P and love it. But have to say that also at the wide end is quite dark: yes it’s f/4.5 at 70 mm, but it’s f/4.8 at only 72 mm.

Not a problem to me, but perhaps that’s telling that Nikon was really downsizing the lens.

Brian

Incompatible with Nikon’s best bodies.

JXVo

The various Nikon websites are still showing inconsistent compatibility info.
Since the lens does have the AF and VR switches on the lens body, compatibility issues should be limited to those bodies that simply can’t work the AF-P system. These are the D100/D200, Dx0 series and early models in the D3x00 and D5x00. D2 and D3 models I’m not sure about.

Everything else can apparently use the lens but functionality may be limited in some older models e.g. AF restricted to certain AF points and so on. In these cases, firmware updates should be able to fix the issues…if Nikon bothers.

It seems a bit self-limiting to introduce a new lens that will mount but not play seamlessly with a vast number of popular legacy bodies that will still be in use for years to come. Thinking D300/S, D7000, D7100, D700, D6x0, D800. Many owners of these camera bodies would be potential customers and I’m guessing their numbers are far greater than the number of new fully compatible bodies sold to date. This puts more than half the potential market in the dark about compatibility.

I would wait until the user manual is released. The compatibility info in the published manuals is usually more reliable than that of websites in the sales network.

” It seems a bit self-limiting to introduce a new lens that will mount but not play seamlessly with a vast number of popular legacy bodies that will still be in use for years to come. Thinking D300/S, D7000, D7100, D700, D6x0, D800. Many owners of these camera bodies would be potential customers and I’m guessing their numbers are far greater than the number of new fully compatible bodies sold to date. This puts more than half the potential market in the dark about compatibility. ”

Absolutely. This is again a really questionable move by Nikon that doesn’t generate sales due to missing potential.

ITN

Nikon USA had the body compatibility information incorrect at first but now it has been updated to the same information that is on Nikon Japan’s pages.

Notice that it incorporates a stepping motor
Nikon (as they said they will do) is incorporating enhanced mirrorless desighn features into all thier new lens updates

They are not planning to build a new mirrorless line but rather build a mirrorless camera to fit their existing kens line while enhancing the line to work better with either mirrorless or DSLR

It is definitely looking like the new Nikon mirrorless camera will be F mount…..and I believe this is also the best choice Nikon could make.

MB

My thoughts exactly …Nikon put a lot of latest technology in this lens, AF-P, E diaphragm … and made it really light and compact … as if it was designed for mirrorless 🙂
Add rumored 28-80 VR mirrorless lens to it and you have a really nice lightweight full frame F mount mirrorless kit … although I think Nikon will make 28-80 and other lenses in the future mirrorless only …
Also this is a lens from so called affordable line … so we could assume that Nikon is designing one affordable mirrorless camera … that may not support lenses that are not AF-P or E type, without mechanical aperture control etc …

animalsbybarry

I believe Nikon will put stepping motors into all thier future lenses so they will be compatable with both DSLR and mirrorless
They will also build thier mirrorless camera to work with all thier current F mount lenses
They will not build 2 lines of lenses
And I suspect thier mirrorless camera will be F mount

RC Jenkins

I would:
1) agree that their mirrorless will probably be F mount
2) disagree that it’s the ‘best choice’
3) offer that AF-P (and other ‘all-electronic communication) lenses are also easier, cheaper, and seamless to adapt on a new mount with 0 performance hit, since the signals can be ‘pass through’ (like how Canon’s EF adapter + M5 works)

It would be strange if Nikon would incorporate a fixed F-mount (empty mirrorbox design) on this new mirrorless camera without any possibility of adapter and IBIS. This would be clearly less good than any Sony A7 or A9.

ITN

Stepper motors are not the answer for all lenses. For fast movement of large elements over large distances, SWM will continue to be used. Stepper motors can be used instead of SWM in small aperture, compact lenses. In some cases there may be a dual motor solution such as in the Sony 70-200/2.8 FE.

As you, looking at well stablished spanish or european shops, I get same prices like you: about 330-340 € (online shops, you can see it through some Idealo site or similar).

But you might know about those new “chinese dealers in Europe” (Kacha, T-Dimension, eglobal…), and searching at eBay lenses shipped from EU there are quite a few options for less than 250 € shipping included. You can look at their own shops also. Obviously this is kind of grey market, so it has to be considered.

I’ve not bought too much (and items usually not expensive, in which loss if things go bad are less), but my experiences so far have been quite positive.

TheMeckMan

An FX lens with 0 FX lenses that are fully compatible on announcement day…. Even the d5 isn’t fully compatible but my wife’s DX D5500 is… ?? There beter be some firmware updates that resolve this for d750, d810, d5 otherwise you’ll have to get a d820 to use an FX lens on an FX body and have full compatibility from the body…

I agree, there should be firmware updates available for all cameras that are at least 5 years old since their introduction. Otherwise this is a bit of a mess because it won’t help the sales of this lens.

sandy

This lens is designed for Nikon mirrorless IMO. There will be some growing pains. Older cameras may not be compatible with an all electronic shutter.

As far as I’m happy with Nikon gear and understand the problems that advances in technology can bring regarding compatibility, I agree with you: I find Nikon’s position hard to believe in no introducing firmware updates at all (at least with the DX AF-P lenses yet in the market long ago).

Even Apple is better (and i don’t like this company at all) by supporting at least it’s 5 year old computers with drivers and updates. So i see no reason why Nikon shouldn’t be able to do this for their cameras especially if FUJI (with less camera sales on the market) is more capable to deliver support with firmware updates.

nwcs

I think the VR switch is to make it “fully compatible” as the partial compatibility was usually related to the VR mode in firmware only situation.

If i have the D600 which firmware is needed? The last version that is available was C 1.02. Does this mean i have to wait for a newer firmware version or that it’s supported already with the existing version?

sandy

The 18-55 P is fully functional on my D750, except no VR switch so it cannot be shut off. This has a vR switch.

BigIUFan

That sort of makes it not fully functional.

sandy

Hence the word “except”. And to me that is fully functional because I do not turn VR off on it.

Heck. They just update their website. Last night it didn’t say like this (they just copied list from AF-P 18-55 VR).

Rich

I appreciate it’s most likely a good lens but why the dull design. A little oomph in the looks department wouldn’t have hurt

tomskyphoto

If Nikon has really designed this lens for better performance with both mirrorless and DSLR live view this still doesn’t give a compelling reason to make a mirrorless Nikon camera F-mount. If Nikon do not change their signal protocols for lens control, which I wouldn’t expect them to do, there’s absolutely no reason why this lens shouldn’t perform absolutely identical using an adapter from F-mount to FM(?)-mount. Such an adapter would contain no glass and no electronics; it would just be an extension tube with two different physical mounts and electrical contacts routed through.

The truth is that a lot of older Nikon AF lenses are not up to the demands of mirrorless when it comes to their AF drive trains both mechanically and electronically. The notoriously poor live view AF performance of Nikon also gives testament to that. A “native” F-mount mirrorless camera would most likely be a huge disappointment for most buyers, particularly those with a lot of older lenses, as its performance won’t get any close to the mirrorless competition, mainly Sony FE for FX and Fuji X for DX.

Actually a mirrorless camera system’s operation for stills photography is closer to a video camera than to a DSLR in normal operating mode; even more so when it comes to fully electronic shutter. So it’s not too surprising that companies who are also producing professional video gear like Sony, Panasonic and Canon have an advantage and the lead here. The relatively good performance of Canon’s and Sigma’s more recent glass when adapted to Sony E-mount cameras is most likely owed to optimizations of these lenses for video autofocus usage that also make them better suited for the ways a mirrorless stills camera autofocus works.

Sony’s A-mount lenses, however, are poor performers when adapted to their own E-mount cameras because they have dated AF drives and were never designed with video in mind. Sony pretty much acknowledged this by making the LA-EA4 A-mount to E-mount adapter that essentially contains the entire AF-system of an SLT camera including the semi-translucent mirror. But apparently its performance still isn’t great, as the E-mount cameras haven’t been designed to seamlessly integrate the adapter’s AF electronics. It’s also noteworthy that Sony has pretty much stopped actively promoting A-mount to E-mount adapters as a solution for missing focal lengths in their FE lens line-up.

All evidence indicates that a Nikon mirrorless F-mount camera would mostly deliver like adapted A-mount glass on E-mount due to the similarly unsuitable AF designs of most F-mount AF-Nikkors and so only some newer AF-S and the AF-P lenses could probably come close to the mirrorless competition. But as Thom Hogan put it correctly: a Nikon [FX] mirrorless would be measured against the then current Sony A7 generation at its launch. If it can’t match the Sony system it will be considered a failure. But with only nominally compatible but underperforming F-mount DSLR lenses it’s doomed to fail exactly that.

I still think that Nikon should use an all-new fully electronic mount short and wide like Leica; not narrow like Sony’s stupid APS-C mount for FE. Mirrorless capable fully electronic F-mount lenses could be used with a simple extension tube like adapter as mentioned above with no detriments to their performance at all. For older lenses Nikon could offer a more complex adapter that includes the mechanical aperture control too and if they really want to go over the top they could even make one for screwdriver AF lenses.

Apart from the most modern F-mount designs these adapters of course couldn’t do wonders with older lenses. But I bet that most users are more likely to forgive an adapted old lens its poor performance just because it’s “adapted” (though that’s not the real reason for its poor showing) but would be infuriated if the same lens delivered similarly on a mirrorless F-mount camera and would – again incorrectly – blame the camera for failing to work properly with its “native” lens.

So making their mirrorless F-mount could be a move that while seeming smart at first glance could brutally backfire for Nikon once it turns out that for optimum performance new lenses are required anyway. Apart from that F-mount mirrorless wouldn’t be attractive for anyone coming from other systems due to its long registration distance that doesn’t allow adapting of lenses in different mounts. If Nikon want to regain market share like any self-respecting company should want to they can’t lock themselves into a corner with their already shrunk existing customer base and timidly hope that their business won’t deteriorate any further. They need to make bold moves and one of these moves should be abandoning the obsolete F-mount when they go mirrorless.

I would immediately ditch my atrocious A7RII with its poor build quality and horrible UI including all lenses once Nikon makes a proper mirrorless but I’m not at all interested in an F-mount mirrorless even though I own some 20+ F-Nikkors and more than ten of them are AF. Contrary to common belief I also don’t think that the market situation regarding 135 format mirrorless requires any panic moves by Nikon. So far there are only Sony with a technologically pretty competent and otherwise very flawed system and Leica with their boutique pricing for decent but average performance. Anyone entering that market now with a reasonably priced camera system that feels and uses like real photographic tools and not like some kind of cheaply built consumer gadget is in for a huge success. C’mon Nikon – just do it!

The video was interesting as it featured moving targets (some moving towards or away from the camera) and they seemed to be staying in focus (lots of compression artifacts so I couldn’t be totally sure). I’m hoping that the video may have been shot on an as yet unannounced camera with PDAF on the sensor.

HKer

Read photographylife.com, Nasim article may put another spin to what people are saying here. It was possibly designed to cater for a FF mirrorless camera.

120_300 OS for nikon

The older was soft over 200 mm but i do not need this yet i used for almost six years and had some VR problems after three years.but was nice not heavy etc.but trade that one and my old 170-500 biggie for newer F 2:8 version ok 120-300